Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 31 to 33 of 33
  1. #31
    Astonishing Member boots's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    3,775

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by WebLurker View Post
    Kinda reminds me of when Avi Arad (a producer on the Spider-Man movies) suggested that the first Mark Webb movie was an interquel in continuity with the Raimi movies, which even if one overlooks the recasting makes no sense. Besides, wasn't the point of Chapter One to be a reboot of the original years of the comics and replace them as the backstory for the then current ASM run? That's something different then what Byrne suggests.
    is byrne chapter one-ing himself?

    genius
    Last edited by boots; 07-06-2019 at 12:01 AM.
    troo fan or death

  2. #32
    Astonishing Member Revolutionary_Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    2,215

    Default

    As PAD said on his website about John Byrne:

    https://www.peterdavid.net/2006/05/2...of-john-byrne/
    So over on the Byrne board there’s a lengthy thread about the Hulk which consists, for the most part, of bashing my work on the title because, well, it’s the Byrne board, so it’s SOP. But what really fractured me was the following comment from John:

    “Once upon a time, when a writer wanted to “do something different” s/he left the character/title being worked on, handing it over to someone who wanted to continue with the established motifs. Some time around 25 years ago this started to change. Writers like Claremont and David, as well as others, began changing the books/characters to suit their interests of the moment….It’s the same old song — the characters being made to serve the needs of the talent, instead of the talent serving the needs of the characters.”

    You just have to love that from the guy who, before my run on the title, was handed a character who was unmarried and transformed into a monster when he got angry, and over the course of the run he split the character in two, separating them into two individual beings, thus eliminating a dynamic that had been in place for a quarter of a century, married off the hero, and basically wrote a series of stories that were indistinguishable from “Godzilla”–dedicated scientist and his group of equally dedicated followers pursues a furious green monster he’s accidentally unleashed upon the world. Stories that, in short, had nothing to do with the Hulk.

    And that’s not even counting what the master of lip service to authorial intent did to the Vision, turning him white and unemotional when the original Vision was neither.

    That John Byrne. What a crack up.
    Then he said in another context (http://www.peterdavid.net/archives/000974.html)

    In any event, John--who never hesitates to castigate others for proclaiming to be mindreaders, but doesn't hesitate to put forward his opinions on my state of mind as fact--claimed, "PAD is evidentally one of those people who cannot separate himself from his work, and so has taken each of my comments as a personal attack, responding with personal attacks, including most unprofessional "commentary" in the comic books he writes."

    Well, no. I've pointed out that some of his critiques of my work were wildly inaccurate (for instance, holding up Spidey 2099 #1 as an example of how to do a first issue wrong because the hero never appears in costume...except he does, for eight pages. Later John admitted he hadn't actually read it, but stood by his opinion nonetheless.) And I've taken his personal attacks as personal attacks (for instance, his claiming that I advocated the concept of people standing by and doing nothing while policemen were beaten to death.) But I've written quite a bit more than John has, and separating myself from the work has become pretty easy. Unfortunately, John doesn't quite seem to be able to reciprocate. For instance, he obviously thought the sequence in "Captain Marvel #2" in which Rick Jones laughs at the Hulk Annual was some sort of retaliation directed at John. No. I would have done the same sequence no matter who wrote that idiot annual, presuming the editor let me.

    Jeez. Jack Kirby created Funky Flashman and HouseRoy, obvious Stan Lee and Roy Thomas pastiches. What an unprofessional that Jack Kirby was. And hey, how about that story featuring a superpowered character visually based on Jim Shooter, right down to the acne scars as I recall, blowing off his own foot with a blast beam. Who is the unprofessional person who drew that story? I'm trying to remember...

    PAD

    So it doesn't surprise me that Byrne is now claiming that nothing in Chapter One contradicts previous canon. You gotta love the joke that Byrne goes on justifying Chapter One by claiming that Lee and Ditko wrote Amazing without knowing that it would last, and he wrote Chapter One with that in mind...only for Chapter One to get cancelled.

  3. #33
    Incredible Member kingaliencracker's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    975

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Revolutionary_Jack View Post
    As PAD said on his website about John Byrne:

    https://www.peterdavid.net/2006/05/2...of-john-byrne/


    Then he said in another context (http://www.peterdavid.net/archives/000974.html)




    So it doesn't surprise me that Byrne is now claiming that nothing in Chapter One contradicts previous canon. You gotta love the joke that Byrne goes on justifying Chapter One by claiming that Lee and Ditko wrote Amazing without knowing that it would last, and he wrote Chapter One with that in mind...only for Chapter One to get cancelled.
    Byrne is...an interesting guy, to say the least. He holds a lot of controversial and contradictory beliefs.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •